Isn't it OK that the owner of the IP number implicit in
e7fe1b91-8cd5-0310-98dd-2f12e793c5e8 might not be able to say what that
particular UUID was used for? That doesn't affect the usefulness of this
particular ID as a repository identifier.
Or take the Atom blog entry with an id of
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063265 -- is there something wrong because
blogger.com might not have a direct way of knowing exactly what it was
the id of?
Of course, there is a social protocol at work here (how could one have a
naming system without one?); e.g. if someone minted tags beginning
tag:timothy@hpl.hp.com,2005-03-04: without my permission then there
could be problems -- just as they shouldn't mint UUIDs from my machine's
IP number.
If "denotational accountability" was an issue in a particular
application context then I would expect a protocol to arise for dealing
with that. Tags don't *have* to be used opaquely.
Cheers,
Tim.
John Cowan wrote:
> Larry Masinter scripsit:
>
>
>>Yes, there are two separate namespaces that both use
>>dates and named "name minters", but urn:newsml actually
>>identify resources, and the nature of the resource identified
>>can be determined by asking the Provider identified with
>>the ProviderId,
>
>
> (Identified at the date specified by the DateId, provided that Provider
> is still extant.)
>
>
>>while with 'tag', there is no authority to ask, and all of the semantics
>>are inferred from the context of use.
>
>
> So if I ask a tag minter at example.com "What did you mean by <tag:example.com,
> 2005:whatever>?", it's perfectly in order for the tag minter to reply
> "I have no clue"?
>
> This is a social, not a protocol, question.
>
--
Tim Kindberg
hewlett-packard laboratories
filton road
stoke gifford
bristol bs34 8qz
uk
purl.org/net/TimKindberg
timothy@hpl.hp.com
voice +44 (0)117 312 9920
fax +44 (0)117 312 8003